Archive for May, 2009

This is the 5-5-09 BCC Meeting. The first 2:43 is the Board watching Fargo Avenue 2 which is George Webb stating the Board’s December 2006 decision to close the MSTU program to new petitions. Next hear the Board asked who authorized and spent $170,000 by soliciting new petitions into the MSTU 15 months later.

When you and I met on Monday April 27, 2009 at 3:00pm, you told me you would call me when the Agenda item for Fargo Avenue appeared on the May 5, 2009 agenda and was posted on the County website. I told you that it probably would not be posted until 5:00pm on Friday May 1, 2009. It turns out that I was too optimistic and as of 6:00pm today, it is still not posted. My guess is that we will not be able to discuss Mr. Webb’s Staff Recommendation prior to your Agenda Review on Monday May 4, 2009 as you had said. I await your call.

I have three questions that I would like answered:

1. The Board voted in December of 2006 to stop accepting all new petitions for road construction into the MSTU program. However, in March of 2008, 15 months later, County Engineering solicited 24 properties on Rodeo Drive into the MSTU at a cost of more than $170,000 to County taxpayers. Who is directly and ultimately responsible for circumventing the Board’s decision by spend non-Board approved funds; George Webb or Bob Weisman and upon what legal authority did they act?

2. In July of 2008, Commissioner Aaronson would not support finishing the paving of Fargo Avenue stating that finishing the paving of Fargo would move Fargo to the front of the MSTU waiting line. Engineering now has to spend taxpayer money to fix Fargo drainage because of the east/west road paving. How do you justify Staff’s decision to create their own rules and pave a previously non-petitioned road by putting that road to the head of the line and denying the cross street that was adversely affected by that decision, the same equality and opportunity?

3. Fargo has been negatively impacted by the east/west road paving. Now Fargo will be designed, permitted and constructed for drainage for the entire road length leaving only asphalt to finish the process. How could anyone in good conscience leave the last four property lengths unpaved and decide against the requests for pavement by the two property owners at the end of the road?

As you know Commissioner, this item is scheduled for the next BCC Meeting. The favor of a reply would be appreciated before that time. Thank you.